Holder, Raymond v Searle, Bradley William (No 2) [1997] FCA 1158

Holder, Raymond v Searle, Bradley William (No 2) [1997] FCA 1158

Section 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), read with the penalty provisions in s 133, permits an offence to be alleged by reference to conduct involving multiple articles. A prosecutor can allege importation, sale or other proscribed conduct in respect of multiple infringing copies, including copies relating to different copyright works, without the information being bad for duplicity. The Act is directed to penalising conduct measured by the transaction constituting the conduct rather than by a minute article-by-article calculation, and any penalty can be assessed by reference only to the articles proved to be infringing copies.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offences Against S 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) / Ex Tempore Ruling on Defendant's Submission That the Informations Were Bad for Duplicity
Outcome
The defendant's contention was rejected; the three offences alleged were not duplicitous.
Legal Topics
['duplicity' 'informations' 'infringing Copies' 'copyright Offences Under S 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)' 'penalty Provisions Under S 133 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)']
['practice and Procedure' 'criminal Law' 'copyright'] ['duplicity' 'informations' 'infringing Copies' 'copyright Offences Under S 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)' 'penalty Provisions Under S 133 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Prosecution for Offences Against S 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth) / Ex Tempore Ruling on Defendant's Submission That the Informations Were Bad for Duplicity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether informations for offences based on s 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) were bad for duplicity.' 'Whether an offence alleging infringing articles based on one copyright work, if joined with an allegation involving infringing copies of another and different copyright work, is duplicitous.' 'Whether a prosecutor can allege a contravention of s 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) asserting importation, sale or other proscribed conduct in respect of a number of infringing copies of one work or different works.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 132 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), read with the penalty provisions in s 133, permits an offence to be alleged by reference to conduct involving multiple articles. A prosecutor can allege importation, sale or other proscribed conduct in respect of multiple infringing copies, including copies relating to different copyright works, without the information being bad for duplicity. The Act is directed to penalising conduct measured by the transaction constituting the conduct rather than by a minute article-by-article calculation, and any penalty can be assessed by reference only to the articles proved to be infringing copies.

Court Disposition

The defendant's contention was rejected; the three offences alleged were not duplicitous.

Orders

  • ['The information in QG 187 of 1996 is not bad for duplicity.' 'The amended information in QG 188 of 1996 is not bad for duplicity.' 'The information in QG 189 of 1996 is not bad for duplicity.']